In replying, we will relate to only one aspect of the topic, namely, the fact that science has not yet established a uniform consensus of opinion in this area.
There is an enormous gap between professional science and popular science in this matter. Popular science produces a plethora of encyclopedias and “Everyman’s Guide to Stars, Starches, and/or Starfish.” Children's textbooks also fall into this category.
In most of this printed matter, popular science lumps together the age of the universe and the theory of evolution, taking the latter as a given, despite the fact that no concrete proofs are offered to support it.
In the field of professional science, however, there is no such general consensus of opinion regarding the origin of the world, or its age. There are also extensive controversies about the dinosaurs so widely pictured in volumes on popular science. The fact of the matter is that no dinosaur ever posed for his portrait, neither for a human artist, nor for the camera. While dinosaur fossils have been found at various locations, a complete skeleton has yet to be discovered. The models displayed in museums and the illustrations of dinosaurs found in popular scientific literature are presumptions based on composites of fossil fragments. While they may be classified as educated guesses, they cannot be presented as an established fact.
We refer the reader to our answer to a related question, in the hopes that it will help to clarify this issue:
Is there any way to clearly prove that Darwin's theory of evolution has no scientific basis?
Ever since Darwin first published his theory of evolution, and down to our own times ─ a period of about 150 years ─ there have always been prestigious scientists who rejected his theory by citing proofs that refuted Darwin's basic assumptions.
Darwin's supporters strive to create the impression that it is only the religious camp which opposes his ideas. Furthermore, they wish to create the impression that only the backward, primitive mind will fail to grasp the principles of Darwinism.
However, the situation is quite to the contrary; several volumes which refute Darwinism have been published by distinguished figures from the world of science. We recommend to the reader two of them, which are relatively easy to understand:
1. Not by Chance, by Dr. Lee Spetner, Kest-Leibowitz, 1996
2. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Dr. Michael Denton, Burnett Books, 1986
Nearly all the claims of the Darwinists fail to stand up to the test of unbiased scientific reasoning. The main arguments against evolution include:
3. There is no explanation for the formation of the macro-molecules, such as DNA and the complex proteins required to sustain life. We are speaking of incomprehensibly enormous quantities of data, all of which, according to Darwin, would have to "fall into place" with no direction whatsoever from any form of intelligence. In other words, there is no allowance for any degree of control or purposeful selection in the process.
The forms of life referred to are above the level of basic organisms, which could survive outside a living cell. Many scientists have calculated the statistical chance of the spontaneous generation of such molecules, and they are so absurdly slim, that those who persist in adhering to Darwin's theory can be viewed as die-hard fanatics, unable to part with their pet theories, no matter how unreasonable they prove to be.
4. There is no explanation as to how the first, primitive cell which, according to Darwin, "evolved" into life as we know it, came into being. In this connection, we highly recommend an article from Scientific American, February, 1991: "Beginning Trends in Evolution", by John Horgan.
5. The mechanism of natural selection and accidental mutation can doubtlessly explain micro-evolution, that is, the phenomenon of minor variations and similar forms of life. However, it does not stand up to scientific testing with regard to macro-evolution, i.e., the formation of new organs, or the appearance of new species, with distinct innovations.
6. The findings resulting from the investigation of fossils refutes the classic concept of evolution. (The more recent theory of Gould and Eldridge concerning punctuated equilibrium is an insult to the intelligence of those who accept it. If we examine it objectively, with common sense, and not from the point of view of those who believe in the absolute omnipotence of pure chance and accident.)
7. There are additional proofs in other volumes which we have already mentioned. We will cite only one argument here:
For many years, experiments have tried to replicate the process of evolution, that is, to create genetic changes artificially, in the laboratory.
To this end, experimenters used various methods to expedite and accelerate the processes involved, rather than waiting for evolution to take place via spontaneous, accidental mutation. In other words, instead of allowing evolution to take place as a result of accidental mutation and natural selection, they deliberately created mutations or genetic changes and then used artificial, bizarre selection, rather than natural selection.
In these experiments, the natural processes are accelerated by a factor of over one hundred million. Even so, the results are clear and irrefutable: It is indeed possible to introduce changes in some species, and, here and there, to improve them, but the overwhelming majority of the changes that occur are degenerative, lowering the functioning of the species or even leading to its destruction.
In any event, there is a limit to the degree of change which can be induced in a genome. Every change over and above this threshold will not result in the origin of a new species, but will rather destroy the existing one.
The logical conclusion to be drawn from experiments performed in the laboratory is that evolution could not have taken place naturally.
Further material on this subject is available to visitors to our site under the heading "Jewish Perspectives: Faith and Science.